DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

22)(e) of the Act. Thus the AO had rightly invoked the said provisions based on detailed fund trail 4 Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. analysis, substantial shareholding of the assessee in M/s. Subhkam and the colourable structuring adopted in avoiding tax on deemed dividend. 6. Whereas on the contrary Ld. AR relied up the detailed submissions filed by the assessee before

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

section 2(22) (e) of the Act and treated the amount of accumulated profit as deemed dividend and disallowed the benefits

RAMESH PREMJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

disallowance was made from all the details and facts available on record and, therefore, the main condition for reopening the case beyond four years which is failure on the part of Appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts was not established by the AO. Hon’ble ITAT is requested to reverse the order 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Ramesh

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallow the same in entirety. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made before us and ve considered the rival submissions made before us and ve considered the rival submissions made before us and perused the material placed on record. Firstly, we have decided in perused the material placed on record. Firstly, we have decided in perused the material placed

M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by holding that the assessee can not be regarded

ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by holding that the assessee can not be regarded

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

2(22)(e) of the Act do not apply on receipt of preference share application money by Appellant from BTPL; B. Addition of preference share application money received amounting to Rs.90.00,00,OOP/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act M/s. Khorakiwala Holdings and Investments Pvt. Ltd. 7. erred in not adjudicating the ground on taxability

ACIT 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATED HOSPITALITY LTD DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-12(1)(1), M/S Associated Hospitality & Room No.223, 02Nd Floor, Developers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Techniplex-1, Off. Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca7847P Shri Anadi Varma Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rajesh S. Shah

section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A) order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 1 of Revenue’s appeal

ITO 7(2)(4, MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWLES INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act, on the grounds that assessee has set up new unit in SEZ by splitting/reconstruction of already existing unit. The AO also made addition towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e

ASST CIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNJEWELS INTERNATONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act, on the grounds that assessee has set up new unit in SEZ by splitting/reconstruction of already existing unit. The AO also made addition towards deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. DIGVIJAY INVESTMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 15. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance after

DIGVIJAY INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 5708 & 5709/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Acit Circle 11(2) Digvijay Investments Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, (Now Merged With M/S. Placid Ltd.) Vs. Room No.26, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Hastings, Koltaka 700 069. Kolkata 700 022. Pan Aaacd5532B Now Merged With Pan Aabcp5447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 15. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance after

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATURN ADVISORY SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

disallowance under Section 2(22)(e) of the I. T. Act. During the assessment year under consideration namely 20062007, credit

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. REYNOLD SHIRTING P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, 3Rd Phase, Opp. Mittal Estate, R.No.32(1), Ground Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made u/s. 2(22)(e) to Rs. 6.34 crores in place of Rs. 16.67 crores made in the assessment order. Thus the addition of Rs. 6.34 crores is confirmed and balance is deleted. Ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. The Department is in appeal against deletion of addition of Rs.16,67,00,000/- and the assessee

REYNOLD SHIRTING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, D-Wing, Oberoi Tax, Garden Estate Chandivali Central Circle – 38, Farms Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chandivali, Ground Floor, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 072 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reynold Shirting Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Central Circle – 38, 143, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, 3Rd Phase, Opp. Mittal Estate, R.No.32(1), Ground Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaccr 7055H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made u/s. 2(22)(e) to Rs. 6.34 crores in place of Rs. 16.67 crores made in the assessment order. Thus the addition of Rs. 6.34 crores is confirmed and balance is deleted. Ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. The Department is in appeal against deletion of addition of Rs.16,67,00,000/- and the assessee

D. P. VORA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

2(22)(e) of the Act by framing the assessment vide order dated 8.3.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,19,80,950/- by making various disallowances

GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 43B of the Act.” 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the AO made disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act of sales tax liability of Rs.9,71,247/- on the ground that the said amount was not paid on or before the due date of filing

DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 43B of the Act.” 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the AO made disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act of sales tax liability of Rs.9,71,247/- on the ground that the said amount was not paid on or before the due date of filing